Topic: Political Parties
The Roots of America's Political Parties Very few people know and understand the roots of the Republican and Democrat parties. This article presents the truth.by Ryan Burgett
(libertarian)
Thursday, January 28, 2010
I rarely turn on the radio nowadays, but when I do I am almost always disappointed in what I hear. The top political commentators often have a good grasp on current politics, but when it comes to history, they can not see back beyond their own birth date. I have heard time and time again, "We must bring the party back to its roots!" But do they realize what those roots are? Do they realize where the parties came from? If they learned the truth, they would realize the ignorance of what they have been saying. So where do our modern political parties come from?
While the ideologies of each party can be traced back further, I am going to begin at the founding of the United States. Following the ratification of the Constitution, the intense divisions in ideology among the founders became visible very quickly. On one side, there were the classical liberals who believed in limited, decentralized government, hard money and individual liberty. As far as they were concerned, the government had very little if any responsibilities and absolutely no power over businesses and the lives of individuals. These people gathered around Thomas Jefferson and became known as Democratic Republicans. (1)
The competing ideology of the time was a mixture of mercantilism and nationalism. The adherents to this ideology believed in a powerful, centralized national government with heavy intervention in business and the economy. They saw big businesses and banks as the engines of prosperity, rather than individuals. These people gathered around Alexander Hamilton and became known as Federalists. (2)
During Washington's administration, the Federalists established the first central bank of the United States which funneled subsidies to favored businesses and industries. Alexander Hamilton, who was also a big proponent of a national debt, put in place the first major government redistribution scheme by forcing the southern states to pay for the debt of the northern states. Also during this time, the Federal government marched an army into a small farming town and intimidated farmers literally at the point of a gun into paying unfair taxes. In John Adams' Federalist administration, free speech was abolished by the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and anyone who spoke out against the administration was threatened or thrown in jail for it. Also, any immigrant suspected of ties to France was forcefully detained and deported without any recourse through the court system. (3) (4) (5)
When Thomas Jefferson became President, things quickly changed. True to his classical liberal ideals, his administration fought against a central bank, reduced or abolished all federal taxes and pardoned all who had been jailed for exercising their right to free speech. This was all in stark contrast to the Federalist model of government. (6)
During the 1820s, in response to the moderate administrations of James Madison and James Monroe, Thomas Jefferson orchestrated a rebirth of the party as the "Democrat Party." Andrew Jackson, the first President of the new Democrats followed in Jefferson's footsteps by retiring the national debt, abolishing taxes and closing the second central bank. (7)
In the 1830s, the big government federalist John Quincy Adams (son of John Adams) became disillusioned with the current Federalist party and took part in rebooting it as the new "Whig Party." (8)
So the Democrat Party carried on the fight for limited, decentralized government, hard money and government non-interventionism while the Whig party continued to fight for big government intervention in businesses and the economy. Crisis came for the Whig party in the 1850s over the topic of slavery. Those opposed to slavery split off and began the Republican party, which was actually the Federalist party 3.0. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, said, "My policies are short and sweet... I am in favor of a National Bank, I am in favor of the Internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff." So the Republican party was standing on a platform of: central banking, infrastructure spending projects and subsidies, protective tariffs and trade controls. (9) (10) (11)
During and following the Civil War the Republicans continued to support massive government while the Democrats supported extremely limited, non-interventionist government. (12)
Crisis came to the Democrat party in the 1890s. It was during this time that the populists took over the party. Unlike the Republicans who fought for government intervention for the benefit of big business, the populists fought for government intervention for the benefit of the common people. So at the turn of the 20th century, there ceased to be an opposition party, instead there were two parties that were both fighting for massive government intervention. The Federal Reserve is a perfect example of this. The Federal Reserve system was originally designed and sponsored by Republicans, but when they lost power the Democrats took over and signed it into law. (13)
One last topic worth bringing up is military might and imperialism. The Republicans--two perfect examples being Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt--believed in keeping a strong standing army and thought military intervention both at home and abroad was a good thing. The Democrat party was strongly opposed to standing armies and especially opposed to any military intervention. But this distinction ended during the Wilson administration when the Democrat party was seduced by imperial ambitions. (14)
The twentieth century was a century of massive government intervention and imperialism leading to constant corruption, recessions/depressions and world wars. It was the fulfillment of the dreams of the early Federalists.
So what does a Republican mean when they say they want to get "back to their roots"? The twentieth century Republican presidents who best stood for the Republican party roots were Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush! Is that what they mean by getting back to their roots? Do the radio talk show hosts want the Republican party to be more like Hoover, Nixon and Bush?
Most Republicans and Democrats know nothing about their roots except what the lying party leadership tells them. Americans need to learn their history and decide for themselves what they believe in. There is no good left in the current two-party system, it is nothing more than a two-headed, one-party monster that is devouring the liberty of businesses and individuals. "Getting back to their roots" is not the answer to the problems we face today. The only real answers will come from a renewed knowledge of true history and the courage to stand for what's right, even if it means standing alone.
So what can you do?
1. LEAVE THE PARTY! Party leadership needs to know that the American people will no longer accept their lies. 2. Read or listen to The Law, by Frdric Bastiat. This short booklet articulates very clearly the principles behind proper government. 3. Read the U.S. Constitution. This short document is the supreme law of the land. It shows what our Federal Government is supposed to look like and most importantly, what exactly it is supposed to do (and it is a very short list!). 4. If you have any questions regarding specific portions of the Constitution or would just like to have a deeper understanding of it, purchase The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, by Edwin Meese. Using this reference book, you can look up any specific portion of the Constitution and learn what it means along with what our founding fathers and the Federalist Papers said about it. 5. Vote your conscience! Stand for the Constitution and the principles that make up proper government. Do not accept the "lesser of two evils" because if you accept that lie, the country will continue in the wrong direction forever. We need to stand for what is right, not for what is less evil.
Sources:
(1) Allison, Andrew M. The Real Thomas Jefferson. 1983. 161-69. (2) Rothbard, Murray N. The Case Against the Fed. 1994. 72-73. (3) Parry, Jay A. and Andrew M. Allison. The Real George Washington. 1991. 567-569. (4) Ellis, Joseph J. Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. 2002. 190-191. (5) Bowman, John. The History of the American Presidency. 1998. 21. (6) Carson, Clarence B. The Beginning of the Republic: 1775-1825. 1984. 164-165. (7) Rothbard, Murray N. For a New Liberty. 1972. 1-20. (8) Bowman, John. The History of the American Presidency. 1998. 38. (9) McPherson, James M. Abraham Lincoln. 2009. 15-18. (10) DiLorenzo, Thomas J. The Real Lincoln. 2003. 54. (11) Bowman, John. The History of the American Presidency. 1998. 71. (12) Rothbard, Murray N. The Case Against the Fed. 1994. 73-75. (13) Rothbard, Murray N. The Case Against the Fed. 1994. 82-118. (14) Goldberg, Jonah. "Woodrow Wilson and the Birth of Liberal Fascism." Liberal Fascism. 2008. 78-120.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 20 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Ryan Burgett only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Ryan Burgett is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Excellent article. Very informative, assuming the history is correct, this is a terrific article for people less informed, for new voters, for younger people, and for those getting involved in the Tea Party activities. The author writes well, its clear and understandable. In addition, he provides a strong list of references. This is a good article. The best I have read on here to date.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2010-01-28 08:45:59
Hi R Burgett,
The place where an american voter has the most influence over the future of our government is in the candidate grooming and selection, including primary elections inside the two major parties.
By the time election day comes, the only information a vote carries is binary; a tally. Nothing more. Encouraging individuals to abandon the candidate selection process to the enemies of liberty is a sure way to see those candidates are groomed to be enemies of liberty and aligned with the perpetual growth of the state.
Those who do not participate in the candidate grooming deserve the choices they are presented with by their enemies on election day. Enjoy the fruits of your apathy and self-righteous futility is all I can say to those who follow your advice.
Anyone who would abandon the most powerful tools available for defending individual liberty into the hands of the enemy may as well just BE the enemy in my view.
Libertarians who choose to pursue "freedom from" the struggle and who then go about rationalizing their choice to embrace futility and self-marginalization cannot simultaneously defend individual liberty of the nature, "freedom to." As long as an overwhelming force is not applied against individuals they remain "Free To" create communities, clubs, movements, parties and teams.
So, unless you have a plan for forcing each and every individual alive today, and all individual who will ever be born in the future from choosing to join a party or join a club or forming a community of like-minded folks, your drop-out plan is nothing more than a hissy-fit because you don't like that other people have the "freedom to" unify.
Funny that Mark Vogl counts your article as one of the best ever when about 90% of articles written here say the exact same thing over and over and over. On this site you are primarily just mooing in unison with the rest of the folks who pursue "freedom from" things they don't like and simulatenously open those who defend "freedom to" exercise individual liberty open the full force of our political opponents.
As to your opening question about "party roots" that is political speak meant to mobilize, not inform. Addressing it with logic and history along wiht you advice to drop out and take what your enemies deliver to you for candidates simply demostrates that you don't know why these things are said and how politics works. You're hoping that the force of your feelings, faith and emotions will change reality so you can avoid doing the work necessary to defend your own liberty. At least you are part of a comfortable herd who agree that mooing in unison is the only defensible activity a true defender of "freedom from" can take and still be part of the herd.
Heaven forbid any of you step out of the herd and face the enemies of liberty on the political battle ground. The herd you now embrace will shun you if you dare this so you have make sure you have the courage to stand alone is you ever decide to abandon deliberate futility.
I tend to agree with Mr. Fire Eater in that it is a mistake to abandon the Republican party because you don't agree with some of those in it. One thing we can learn from the past is that political parties have evolved (or devolved if you prefer) into something other than what they used to be.
The reality is that we are in a two party system with idealogical spinoffs here and there. These spinoffs serve only to subtract votes from one major party over one or two issues while insuring the victory for the other major party. Consider the fact that Ross Peroe subtracted so many votes from Bush One, that we ended up with Clinton.
The Kentucky state slogan and Jesus Christ point out the truth that "united we stand, divided we fall" or, "a house divided against itself cannot stand."
I believe that Republican conservatives--or better, constitutionalists and Libertarian constitutionalists have enough in common that we can be united under one party affiliation, and involve ourselves in the vetting process of a candidate so that we never again have to choose between one progressive over another, We can have a candidtate that holds fast to the consitution, and reveres the limited government ideals of our founding fathers.
All of us will never completely agree on all issues, but we must remain united if we are to prevail against the enemies within our great country.
Take a look at the democratic party today. Is there unity? Isn't there a lot of disagreement and dissention? What an opportunity for us to unite in strength and steer America back to freedom! It might take awhile to finally accomplish making our constitution our supreme law (under God) again, but remember how patient the progessives have been over the last century. Let's unite, and stay that way. We will eventually purge the progressives from our party as long as we continue to educate the American people properly and expose those in our own party who would try to lead us toward socialism or worse.
The article demonstrates the evolutionary nature of our political parties, and I agree (as usual) with the Fire Eater. We must work within the system we have in order to affect a change toward the Jeffersonian liberalism that's been abandoned.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
